This is a message I sent to a
Navy squadron mate who is now a CPA/tax accountant after we got into a
discussion of the income tax during a brief visit at Christmas time.
I had hoped that Chuck would
respond and show me the error of my assertions if I were wrong about the
conclusions I had reached regarding the income tax. Unfortunately, I received
no response.
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 5:12 PM
To: XXXX
Subject: What you don’t know about the IRS and the federal income tax
will shock you
This
is to follow up on our abbreviated discussion regarding the fraudulent status
of the federal income tax. It is not a simple matter to unravel, but you cannot
fairly examine this information without concluding that the income tax is a
major hoax perpetrated against the American people. A progressive income tax
was also one of the key items on the Communist Party agenda for its plan to
destroy the American constitutional republic.
There
are many other well-researched sources to confirm everything contained in the
document excerpted below, created by Paul Mitchell. I challenge you to
prove that anything included here is incorrect. Can you point me to the law
that requires payment of an income tax or filing of an income tax return? You
will find that every purported “rule” in the IRS publications is an obfuscation
designed to mislead you into believing that you have an income tax liability
when, in fact, no such liability exists.
The
Founders provided for adequate revenues to support the limited federal government
authorized by the Constitution. In fact, the federal government was running
surpluses right up until the adoption of the income tax. The bankers wanted the
income tax and the Federal Reserve System for their own purposes, not to
provide needed revenue for government services. (Please read “The
Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin for more on this
insidious conspiracy.)
The
problem is that the left began its assault on the Constitution over one hundred
years ago, gradually but relentlessly building a federal government leviathan
that is now unmanageable and unsustainable, and one that pursues increased
control over the daily lives of our citizens without restraint. Where this all
leads is frightening to contemplate, and we are clearly running out of time to
avoid a worst-case scenario.
You
pointed out that I am one of the beneficiaries of this system by virtue of my
Social Security benefits. Well, I will not be held hostage by this Communist
scheme. I will gladly sacrifice those benefits in return for a restoration of
the United States Constitution.
What
you don’t know about the IRS and the federal income tax will shock you
“The IRS appears to be a money laundry, extortion racket, and
conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity… There are no
statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes… the
Internal Revenue Code has never been enacted into positive law, and the code is
so deliberately vague as to render it unconstitutional under the Sixth
Amendment…and the purported Sixteenth Amendment is demonstrably fraudulent.”
Excerpted
from: “31 Questions
and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service” by Paul A.
Mitchell
In
the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S.
Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found,
after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which
ended in the year 1865 A.D…
The
IRS appears to be a collection agency working for foreign banks and operating
out of Puerto Rico
under color of the Federal Alcohol Administration (“FAA”). But the FAA
was promptly declared unconstitutional inside the 50 States by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of U.S. v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935), because Prohibition
had already been repealed…
When
all the evidence is examined objectively, IRS appears to be a money laundry,
extortion racket, and conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 and 1961 et seq. (“RICO”)…Administrative Procedures Act.
The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from Act of Congress, nor any Executive Order, giving IRS lawful
jurisdiction to operate within any of the 50 States of the Union…
Deceptive
nomenclature (showing “Department of the Treasury” on outgoing IRS mail) is
intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or
department within the U.S. Department of
the Treasury…
The
IRS is not an “agency” as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act.
The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the
definition of federal “agency” by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C). Since
IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico
(RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which
can be represented by the DOJ…
Neither
(the Fourteenth nor the Sixteenth Amendment) was properly ratified. In the
case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket
number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the
face of an Application
to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER
compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called
16th
amendment…
The
so‑called sixteenth “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation,
even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two
Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be
apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme
Court have both ruled
that repeals by implication are not favored.
The
so‑called 16th
amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the
American People and the United States…
Similarly,
the so-called 14th
amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett
v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the
Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th
amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People...
Judging
by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated,
particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th
amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in
American history…
______________________________________________________________________________________
There
are no statutes that create a specific liability for federal income
taxes.
Section 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code (“IRC”) contains no provisions creating a specific liability for
taxes imposed by subtitle A.
Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees,
pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a
specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the
definition of “Withholding agent” at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For
example, see IRC section 1461. A separate
liability statute for “employment” taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC
section 3403.
After
a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by
completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who
is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that
worker’s paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into
the Treasury of
the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is
legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 (“Treasury of the
United States”).
If
the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate,
consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll
officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes.
In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or
for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD,
specifically because there is no withholding agent.
Federal
regulations do not and can not create an income tax liability for any class of
people.
The
regulations at 26 CFR 1.1-1 attempted to create a specific liability for all
“citizens of the United States” and all “residents of the United States”.
However, those regulations correspond to IRC section 1, which does
not create a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Therefore,
these regulations are an overly broad extension of the underlying statutory
authority; as such, they are unconstitutional, null and void ab initio (from
the beginning). The Acker case cited above held that federal
regulations cannot exceed the underlying statutory authority.
Conflicting
provisions of the Constitution and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, together with the
non-ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, have resulted in the existence of
two classes of citizens within the United States.
There
are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first
class originates in the Qualifications
Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United
States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.)
Notice the UPPER CASE “C” in “Citizen”.
The
pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to
mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the
States United”. See People v.
De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337
(1870); Judge Pablo De La
Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined
the Union.
Prior
to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the
holding in Pannill
v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key
point.
The
second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act,
where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act
was later codified at 42
U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The
pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal
franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by
President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the
Thirteenth
Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling
payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to
involuntary servitude, and extortion.
Instead
of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who
sponsored the 1866
Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of
citizens.
Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by
proposing a 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was
never ratified.
Numerous
court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One
of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke,
252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens
had no standing to sue under the Diversity
Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in
the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.
Another
is Ex
parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court
ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of
the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke
42 U.S.C. 1983;
whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F.
941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).
Many
more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens
under American Law. These
cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking
the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.,
now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson,
also in the Supreme Law Library.
The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Brushaber case that the income tax which is the
subject of the purported Sixteenth Amendment is an indirect tax (“excise”)
subject to the restriction of Article I Section 8 of the United States
Constitution that such tax ”shall be uniform throughout the United States” as a
result of a voluntary act resulting in the application of the tax. Thus the
enforcement by the IRS of the income tax as an unapportioned direct tax is
unquestionably unconstitutional.
Frank
Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the
first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th
amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York
State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and
nobody challenged that claim. The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal
corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from
the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e.
inside the federal zone.
Brushaber’s
attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by
the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress
first created that corporation. Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the
company. He then sued the company to recover taxes that Congress had
imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders.
The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a
lawful excise, or indirect tax.
The
most interesting result of the Court’s ruling was a Treasury Decision (“T.D.”)
that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of
the high Court’s opinion. In T.D. 2313, the
U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it
identified Frank Brushaber as a “nonresident alien” and the Union Pacific
Railroad Company as a “domestic corporation”. This Treasury Decision has
never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is
crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no
territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had
no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or
anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus,
there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident
alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State
Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of
Congress, i.e. the federal zone.
The
term “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, but the U.S. Supreme
Court has defined income as “profit or gain derived from corporate
activities”.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has
ruled that the term “income” is not defined anywhere in the IRC: “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the
Internal Revenue Code.” U.S.
v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976).
Moreover, in Mark
Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the High Court
told Congress it could not legislate any definition of “income” because that
term was believed to be in the U.S. Constitution. The Eisner case was predicated
on the ratification of the 16th
amendment, which would have introduced the term “income” into the U.S. Constitution
for the very first time (but only if that amendment had been properly
ratified).
In Merchant's
Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), the high Court
defined “income” to mean the profit or gain derived from corporate activities.
In that instance, the tax is a lawful excise tax imposed upon the
corporate privilege of limited liability, i.e. the liabilities of a
corporation do not reach its officers, employees, directors or stockholders.
The
income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are “municipal law”
(applicable only to the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, American
Samoa, and Puerto Rico); Title 26 of the United States Code (the location of
the IRC) has never been enacted into positive law; and the code is so
deliberately vague as to render it unconstitutional under the Sixth
Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The
IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law
is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign
State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International
Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the
ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city
council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal
encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone,
the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code.
A
mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the
book “The Federal Zone”
to prove that the IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law. One of the most
famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a
Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by
the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their
advice confirmed that the meaning of “State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted
to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and Puerto Rico.
In
other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all similar federal
statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more.
The
general rule is that federal government powers must be expressed and
enumerated.
For example, the U.S.
Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers. If a power is
not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, then Congress does not have any
authority to exercise that power. This rule is tersely expressed in the Ninth
Amendment, in the Bill of
Rights. If California is not mentioned in any of the federal income
tax statutes, then those statutes have no force or effect within that
State. This is also true of all 50 States.
Strictly
speaking, the omission or exclusion of anyone or anything from a federal
statute can be used to infer that the omission or exclusion was intentional
by Congress.
In Latin, this is tersely stated as follows: Inclusio unius est
exclusio alterius. In English, this phrase is literally
translated: Inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of all
other things [that are not mentioned]. This phrase can be found in
any edition of Black’s Law Dictionary; it is a maxim of statutory
construction.
The
many different definitions of the term “State” that are found in federal
laws are intentionally written to appear as if they include the 50
States PLUS the other places mentioned. As the legal experts in
Congress have now confirmed, this is NOT the correct way to interpret,
or to construct, these statutes. If a place is not mentioned, every American
may correctly infer that the omission of that place from a federal statute was
an intentional act of Congress. Whenever it wants to do so,
Congress knows how to define the term “United States” to mean the 50 States of
the Union. See IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A).
Federal
income tax revenues are NOT used to pay for any government services.
The
money trail is very difficult to follow, in this instance, because the IRS
is technically a trust with a domicile in Puerto Rico.
See 31 U.S.C. 1321(a)(62).
As
such, their records are protected by laws which guarantee the privacy of trust
records within that territorial jurisdiction, provided that the trust is not
also violating the Sherman
Antitrust Act. They are technically not an “agency” of the federal
government, as that term is defined in the Freedom of Information Act
and in the Administrative
Procedures Act. The governments of the federal territories are
expressly excluded from the definition of “agency” in those Acts of
Congress. See 5
U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
All
evidence indicates that they are a money laundry, extortion racket, and
conspiracy to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 1951
and 1961 et
seq.
They
appear to be laundering huge sums of money into foreign banks, mostly in
Europe, and quite possibly into the Vatican. See the national policy on
money laundering at 31
U.S.C. 5341.
The
final report of the Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan,
quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income
taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace
Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the
federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement
programs like federal pension plans.
______________________________________________________________________________________
HOW
SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was,"
make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and
that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed
fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.
What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the
states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have
been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for
ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress.
There
were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to
give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost
the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th
amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office
to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that
four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he
counted 38 states as having approved it.
We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding
the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having
received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the
proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that
the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on
income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax!
When
they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate
rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that
its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and
this was the version they sent back to Knox.
Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as
approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that
states were not allowed to change it in any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and
Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and,
moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state
constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would
have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion"
argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged
by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the
count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification.
If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th
amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from
acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress
until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course,
is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state
legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the
outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to
approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've
probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on
voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right -
they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to
do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the
resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18.
These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null
and void.
Their (Tennessee’s) approval is and was invalid, and it brings the
number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions
prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any
additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
